Resolution vs. Musicality
- Thread starter Cellcbern
- Start date
While all of the above points may have validity, within the context of this thread and my post #56 in it, I was referring to the specific case where the tweaks were successful at removing noise, i.e., they worked, and as a result of less noise other problems became more apparent.
When it comes to vibrations/resonances at least two things are necessary-for optimal performance: 1) isolation from floorborne and airborne vibrations, and 2) “draining” and/or tuning component resonances. #2 is more complicated than it may sound. You can provide a path for Internally generated resonances to “drain” out of a component and be absorbed/dissipated (e.g., Stillpoints) or you can “tune” the resonances so they are more “sympathetic” to the music. Companies like Yamamoto and Combak Harmonix use tonewoods alone or in combination with metals to create tuning feet. I have heard both work well but it is trial and error. Different components react differently to both approaches. There is a third approach (e.g., Dalby Lignum Vitae and ASI Top Line feet) which uses tone woods and metals in a footer that appears to be designed to drain/absorb resonances but to my ears at least also tunes a component’s resonant signature to make it more natural sounding and musical. Not sure how these work but they are the best I have encountered, producing the clarity that Stillpoints achieve without the analytical signature Stillpoints can impart. I have read that the tiny pores in some woods can absorb resonances and convert them to heat. If that’s true then even a simple Yamamoto ebony cone/cup may be draining a little as well as tuning. I find these very effective by the way on less expensive equipment and use them on all of my AV system components. Note that Dalby describes the big Lignum Vitae and Ebony discs that they use in their feet as resonance “reservoirs” and says nothing about tuning. Interesting stuff.
My exposure to more upper end gear the past few years has taught me that resolution and musicality are complementary factors, not opposing factors.
You assume your mechanisms are full bandwidth and have perfect behavior - something that does not exist. Unless we fully understand and document exactly what we need we will be just repeating marketing literature - unfortunately the device you refer also does not exist. And amplifiers are a lot more than just a power transformer.
The Nordost Qpoint's I am trying in my system - been thinking about them for sometime, after reading Mike Lavigne posts I took the decision!
Shielding a signal cable reduces electrical noise - but many times degrades perceived sound quality. Also, long ago I got some equipment that had been tweaked with a damping component - I had to clean it all, as it made it sound lifeless.
BTW do you consider microphony as noise?
In the end, if one is willing to take a break from the analysis of the exact color and density of the bark on the trees and step back and view the forest and beyond, isn’t this really what we are all trying to do?
I think it is hard to say. People approach this hobby in all sorts of ways. I want to listen to music now. I find the higher the degree of (natural) resolution, the more I enjoy the music, regardless of how far back I step to hear it.
I see resolution and musicality is being the same. I often use 'musically resolving' to be more specific. I don't see equipment that is incapable of resolution and somehow being musical, unless its being used as a musical instrument, for example a guitar effects pedal. This is really all about distortion; distortion masks detail and distortion can often be amusical (if its higher ordered distortion, or intermodulations).
Put another way, you know you're on the right path when a change renders greater detail (resolution) and more musical presentation (likely because the sound is less harsh/bright; smoother).
Certainly not, fbhifi. I was just enjoying and playing off of your choice of words with the woods. I sit in my listening seat and enjoy the recorded listening perspective. I want the system to have minimum influence over that.
Last edited:
Peter,
Poor resolution, it could not escape from being nicknamed natural(TM) and non-natural (TM) ...
I find curious you seem to object to such audiophile words, but can't resist using them, fueling their use!
IMHO using extreme cases does not help a discussion. No one is addressing equipment incapable of resolution.
Systems can have degrees of resolution and musicality and I do not see they go on par. IMHO musicality is extremely subjective and dependent on preference. Resolution is much less subjective and can be easily compared or even quantified.
peter, my tongue was firmly in cheek when I wrote the “woods” post. Was just trying to point out that the real discoveries may actually come from enjoying the whole rather than analyzing the parts.
Peter,
Poor resolution, it could not escape from being nicknamed natural(TM) and non-natural (TM) ...
I find curious you seem to object to such audiophile words, but can't resist using them, fueling their use!
Is "natural" an audiophile word? It seems a common word that even children and non audiophiles use. People know what it means, but not some audiophiles. I'm sure your students know too, despite your efforts to confuse the meaning. I have borrowed the expression "natural resolution" to relate it to what we hear from live instruments in space and to distinguish it from what some consider going too far into the analytical.
IMO, historic definitions in high-end audio should all be up for grabs.
Well said.
Not so well said. You seem to imply that a resolving system mines deeper into superior recordings than it does inferior recordings or vice versa. That ought not be the case nor ought there be any evidence to support your claim. Nor does it seem logical as a system's current level of resolution should not discriminate between a recording's quality of engineering.
A system's current resolution level (ability to mine) should generally be a constant and is entirely based on what you've acquired and what you've done / not done with altering your playback system in any fashion. That is, aside from some commonly known changes like late night cleaner AC or lesser known changes like little mechanical settling in improvements that we're unaware of. Moreover, its ability to "mine" a recording is based on a constant percentage level. For example. Your playback system is not mining an inferior-engineered recording at 50% and then mining a superior recording at say 70% or vice versa. Rather, it should be mining every recording at the same constant percentage rate regardless of engineering quality.
That said, it is incorrect to think that the more superior-engineered a given recording is, your playback system's current level of resolution will increase one iota. That is illogical and unrealistic. Regardless of recording quality, your system's current level of resolution remains a constant at least until you perform your next system alteration.
As such, there is and should be a direct correlation between one's due diligence toward their system and a system's level of resolution, and subsequently the level of musicality one hears during playback. None of which is based on a given recording's quality of engineering. If one possessed a truly resolving system and listened to a POS recording, that POS recording would still sound more musical than when played back on a less resolving system. Every time.
Of course, the bad news is that a recording's level of engineering quality is entirely outside most of our scopes. But the good news is that it is well within our scope to configure a highly-resolving playback system to get the very most musicality from each and every recording. If we so choose.
Doubtful. At least not as you describe it. Again, supposedly greater resolution translating to a less musical playback presentation is and should be an oxymoron. I suspect you (and others) either have an odd understanding of truly greater resolution, a truly musical presentation, or perhaps both.
Been there, done that. But that was a long time ago. There was a time when the majority of my software library was not worth listening to. But today, it probably amounts to maybe 3 or 5% of my library. BTW, so-called ruthlessly revealing, warts, etc. presentation is not a curse. Rather, it's actually a cry for help that a system still has areas that require significant attention. Nothing more. But this truth only applies to those willing to perform due diligence to continually improve their playback system's level of resolution. For those unwilling to improve their systems, I suppose one might consider it a curse.
Sounds like you're painting the classic scenario that a less-resolving component, speaker, and/or system somehow translates to a more musical presentation. Think of the popular phrase "too detailed" which also is illogical. In reality, this is actually an oxymoron and yet another popular preconceive narrative in high-end audio. It's not more forgiving, it's actually more coloration / less musical. Yes, when a system is less resolving it masks more of the musical detail as you mention but it also masks more of the corruption (distortions) making the presentation more tolerable. I would not call this scenario more musical when it's actually less fatiguing / more bearable - which some may call more musical. Then again, I suppose anything that's less fatiguing is in an odd way considered a bit more musical. But IMO, labeling this scenario as "more musical" is entirely misleading and in several ways. But such are the benefits of following preconceived narratives.
IMO, there is a direct correlation between a truly highly-resolving playback system and the level of musicality we hear in the room. That's because the more truly resolving a playback system, the more music info we hear from a given recording regardless of its engineering quality. In contrast, less resolving implies less music info we hear.
Last edited:
Stehno, you make a good argument here and it makes sense to me up to a point. But while a highly resolving system exposes more of what exists to be mined from the recording, when that recording has flaws, those flaws will be a detriment to the appreciation of the music. So, for instance if the string section is perfectly miked but the brass section is too closely miked, the highly resolving system will present the strings beautifully and horns will sound like shite. I think it's hard to argue that will result in a higher level of musicality during playback.
That being said, I'm not saying a lower resolving, or additionally a dynamically flattened compromise, would be better (even if possibly easier to listen to) for such a flawed recording, only that this recording is severely compromised in any case.
That being said, I'm not saying a lower resolving, or additionally a dynamically flattened compromise, would be better (even if possibly easier to listen to) for such a flawed recording, only that this recording is severely compromised in any case.
Last edited:
Similar threads
